This article presents a corpus-based contrastive study of (dis)fluency in French and English, focusing on the clustering of discourse markers (DMs) and filled pauses (FPs) across various spoken registers. Starting from the hypothesis that markers of (dis)fluency, or ‘fluencemes’, occur more frequently in sequences than in isolation, and that their contribution to the relative fluency of discourse can only be assessed by taking into account the contextual distribution of these sequences, this study uncovers the specific contextual conditions that trigger the clustering of fluencemes in the two languages. First, the contexts of appearance of DMs and FPs are described separately, both in English and French, focusing on their distribution, position and co-occurrence patterns. Then, the combination of DMs and FPs in sequences and their different configurations (DM+FP, FP+DM, etc.) are investigated. Overall, it appears that FPs function differently depending on whether they are clustered with DMs or not, and this difference consists in either maintaining or erasing inter- and intra-linguistic contrasts.
{"title":"The clustering of discourse markers and filled pauses: A corpus-based French-English study of (dis)fluency","authors":"Ludivine Crible, Liesbeth Degand, Gaëtanelle Gilquin","doi":"10.1075/LIC.17.1.04CRI","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/LIC.17.1.04CRI","url":null,"abstract":"This article presents a corpus-based contrastive study of (dis)fluency in French and English, focusing on the clustering of discourse markers (DMs) and filled pauses (FPs) across various spoken registers. Starting from the hypothesis that markers of (dis)fluency, or ‘fluencemes’, occur more frequently in sequences than in isolation, and that their contribution to the relative fluency of discourse can only be assessed by taking into account the contextual distribution of these sequences, this study uncovers the specific contextual conditions that trigger the clustering of fluencemes in the two languages. First, the contexts of appearance of DMs and FPs are described separately, both in English and French, focusing on their distribution, position and co-occurrence patterns. Then, the combination of DMs and FPs in sequences and their different configurations (DM+FP, FP+DM, etc.) are investigated. Overall, it appears that FPs function differently depending on whether they are clustered with DMs or not, and this difference consists in either maintaining or erasing inter- and intra-linguistic contrasts.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82689639","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article investigates the use of finite reporting clauses with that -clause complementation (e.g. I will suggest that …) as devices for the expression of stance in academic texts ( Hyland and Tse 2005 ; Charles 2006 ). These constructions are compared to their functional equivalents in Italian, i.e. reporting clauses with che (‘that’) complementiser. The comparison is carried out using a corpus-based approach, involving the analysis of a parallel corpus of Political Science papers in English and their translations into Italian, as well as a comparable corpus of articles originally written in Italian within the same discipline. Thanks to their ability to convey evaluative meanings, reporting clauses are analysed as structures that may provide insights into the epistemological negotiations taking place in the encounter of different research traditions through the practice of translation.
本文研究了在学术文本中使用有限报告从句和that -从句补语(例如I will suggest that…)作为表达立场的手段(Hyland and Tse 2005;Charles 2006)。将这些结构与意大利语中的功能对等句进行比较，即带che (that)补语的转述从句。比较采用基于语料库的方法进行，包括分析英语政治学论文的平行语料库及其意大利语译文，以及同一学科中最初用意大利语撰写的文章的可比语料库。由于报告从句具有表达评价意义的能力，本文将其作为一种结构进行分析，通过翻译实践，可以深入了解在不同研究传统遭遇时发生的认识论协商。
{"title":"A contrastive analysis of reporting clauses in comparable and translated academic texts in English and Italian","authors":"A. Molino","doi":"10.1075/LIC.17.1.02MOL","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/LIC.17.1.02MOL","url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates the use of finite reporting clauses with that -clause complementation (e.g. I will suggest that …) as devices for the expression of stance in academic texts ( Hyland and Tse 2005 ; Charles 2006 ). These constructions are compared to their functional equivalents in Italian, i.e. reporting clauses with che (‘that’) complementiser. The comparison is carried out using a corpus-based approach, involving the analysis of a parallel corpus of Political Science papers in English and their translations into Italian, as well as a comparable corpus of articles originally written in Italian within the same discipline. Thanks to their ability to convey evaluative meanings, reporting clauses are analysed as structures that may provide insights into the epistemological negotiations taking place in the encounter of different research traditions through the practice of translation.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83498995","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study explores how American English and Peninsular Spanish speakers respond to a compliment. Participants completed an online discourse completion test with nine different complimenting scenarios. A total of 14 different strategies for responding to a compliment were found in the data. Based on verbal reports on language use, it was found that Peninsular Spanish speakers do not compliment as often as American English speakers do. The data analysis also revealed that both language groups clearly prefer to accept a compliment, but whereas American English speakers regard a simple ‘thank you’ as an appropriate compliment response, Peninsular Spanish speakers prefer to agree with the complimented assertion by making a semantically fitted comment. Other differences include the importance of returning a compliment in American English and the need to scale down the illocutionary force of the compliment among Peninsular Spanish speakers.
{"title":"Beyond saying thanks. Compliment responses in American English and Peninsular Spanish","authors":"Montserrat Mir, J. Cots","doi":"10.1075/LIC.17.1.06MIR","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/LIC.17.1.06MIR","url":null,"abstract":"This study explores how American English and Peninsular Spanish speakers respond to a compliment. Participants completed an online discourse completion test with nine different complimenting scenarios. A total of 14 different strategies for responding to a compliment were found in the data. Based on verbal reports on language use, it was found that Peninsular Spanish speakers do not compliment as often as American English speakers do. The data analysis also revealed that both language groups clearly prefer to accept a compliment, but whereas American English speakers regard a simple ‘thank you’ as an appropriate compliment response, Peninsular Spanish speakers prefer to agree with the complimented assertion by making a semantically fitted comment. Other differences include the importance of returning a compliment in American English and the need to scale down the illocutionary force of the compliment among Peninsular Spanish speakers.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72689047","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review of Kranich, Svenja (2016) Contrastive Pragmatics and Translation. Evaluation, Epistemic Modality and Communicative Styles in English and German","authors":"S. Decock","doi":"10.1075/LIC.17.2.07DEC","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/LIC.17.2.07DEC","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79132801","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
German is well-known for its propensity for nominal compounding. This claim is put on a firmer empirical footing by means of a bidirectional translation study between German and English. The difference between the two languages crystallizes in the competition between compounds and phrases. Two complementary asymmetries emerge: first, German compounds are more frequently translated by English phrases than English compounds by German phrases; second, English phrases are more frequently translated by German compounds than German phrases by English compounds. An extension to other word classes shows that the compounding bias in German is not restricted to nouns. It is tentatively argued that the token frequency of word classes plays a role in the emergence of compound propensity. The heavier use of nouns and adjectives in German than in English might be partly responsible for the higher rate of nominal and adjectival compounding in the former than the latter language.
{"title":"Compounding in German and English: A quantitative translation study","authors":"T. Berg","doi":"10.1075/LIC.17.1.03BER","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/LIC.17.1.03BER","url":null,"abstract":"German is well-known for its propensity for nominal compounding. This claim is put on a firmer empirical footing by means of a bidirectional translation study between German and English. The difference between the two languages crystallizes in the competition between compounds and phrases. Two complementary asymmetries emerge: first, German compounds are more frequently translated by English phrases than English compounds by German phrases; second, English phrases are more frequently translated by German compounds than German phrases by English compounds. An extension to other word classes shows that the compounding bias in German is not restricted to nouns. It is tentatively argued that the token frequency of word classes plays a role in the emergence of compound propensity. The heavier use of nouns and adjectives in German than in English might be partly responsible for the higher rate of nominal and adjectival compounding in the former than the latter language.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78967563","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The present study looks at the deictic adverbs now and 現在 ( xianzai ) and examines their respective roles in English and Chinese. Now and xianzai are commonly considered to be semantically equivalent. Their primary value is temporal: both now and xianzai refer to the time of utterance, or more generally to a temporal interval which includes the time of utterance. By examining a parallel corpus of Taiwanese and English novels, this paper aims to show that apart from this present-reference value, now and xianzai have little in common. The analysis of aligned texts reveals that: ( 1 ) now is more frequent than xianzai; ( 2 ) there is an asymmetry in the temporal use of both markers. Following Wang (2001) , I argue that now has a wider semantic range than xianzai : whereas now might be used pragmatically ( Now, why on earth did she leave at such a time? ), xianzai is limited to strict temporal reference. It appears that even in its temporal use, now is more complex than xianzai ; now is quasi-systematically contrastive, whereas xianzai tends to be purely deictic. We conclude that now is closer in function to the Chinese particle le than to the adverb xianzai .
{"title":"Now and xianzai: A contrastive study of two deictic adverbs","authors":"M. Boulin","doi":"10.1075/LIC.17.1.01BOU","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/LIC.17.1.01BOU","url":null,"abstract":"The present study looks at the deictic adverbs now and 現在 ( xianzai ) and examines their respective roles in English and Chinese. Now and xianzai are commonly considered to be semantically equivalent. Their primary value is temporal: both now and xianzai refer to the time of utterance, or more generally to a temporal interval which includes the time of utterance. By examining a parallel corpus of Taiwanese and English novels, this paper aims to show that apart from this present-reference value, now and xianzai have little in common. The analysis of aligned texts reveals that: ( 1 ) now is more frequent than xianzai; ( 2 ) there is an asymmetry in the temporal use of both markers. Following Wang (2001) , I argue that now has a wider semantic range than xianzai : whereas now might be used pragmatically ( Now, why on earth did she leave at such a time? ), xianzai is limited to strict temporal reference. It appears that even in its temporal use, now is more complex than xianzai ; now is quasi-systematically contrastive, whereas xianzai tends to be purely deictic. We conclude that now is closer in function to the Chinese particle le than to the adverb xianzai .","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73895654","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this book, the author examines a French structure that has gained a lot of attention in the last two decades, viz. the gerund. A comparison of its usage in French with the corresponding structures in Swedish shows (1) the multifunctionality of the French gerund and (2) the way Swedish translators deal with this multifunctionality. The study is exclusively synchronic and descriptive. The first chapter presents mainly the corpus of the study, which contains 13 original French and 13 original Swedish novels and their Swedish and French translations (52 novels in total). It also presents the theoretical framework, which is almost entirely built on the work of Swedish authors (e.g. Halmøy 2003) and on Kleiber (e.g. 2007, 2009). The absence of a general framework and of modern theories is one of the weakest points of the book.
{"title":"Review of Hellqvist, Birgitta (2015) Le gérondif en français et les structures correspondantes en suédois.","authors":"Jasper Vangaever","doi":"10.1075/LIC.17.1.07VAN","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/LIC.17.1.07VAN","url":null,"abstract":"In this book, the author examines a French structure that has gained a lot of attention in the last two decades, viz. the gerund. A comparison of its usage in French with the corresponding structures in Swedish shows (1) the multifunctionality of the French gerund and (2) the way Swedish translators deal with this multifunctionality. The study is exclusively synchronic and descriptive. The first chapter presents mainly the corpus of the study, which contains 13 original French and 13 original Swedish novels and their Swedish and French translations (52 novels in total). It also presents the theoretical framework, which is almost entirely built on the work of Swedish authors (e.g. Halmøy 2003) and on Kleiber (e.g. 2007, 2009). The absence of a general framework and of modern theories is one of the weakest points of the book.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75906851","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Canonical question tags feature prominently in spoken English, where they display great versatility. At face value they are meant to elicit a response from a co-participant in the form of (dis)agreement with the proposition to which the tag has been added. Their pragmatic scope is, however, considerably broader: they serve as politeness strategies but also emphasize the speaker’s convictions or mark accusations. Like many other languages, Dutch does not have a similar structure, which raises questions as to what devices Dutch employs to serve the same purpose as question tags. This contrastive study examines such correspondents in a parallel corpus of English novels and their Dutch translations. Three structures can be identified: pragmatic markers, clause-final parentheticals and combinations of these. The data indicate a preference for pragmatic markers (most notably he and toch ), which predominantly appear either as invariant tags or clause-medially, indicating subtle shifts in utterance interpretation.
{"title":"Question tags in translation. An investigation into the translatability of English question tags into Dutch","authors":"Lieven Buysse","doi":"10.1075/LIC.17.2.01BUY","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/LIC.17.2.01BUY","url":null,"abstract":"Canonical question tags feature prominently in spoken English, where they display great versatility. At face value they are meant to elicit a response from a co-participant in the form of (dis)agreement with the proposition to which the tag has been added. Their pragmatic scope is, however, considerably broader: they serve as politeness strategies but also emphasize the speaker’s convictions or mark accusations. Like many other languages, Dutch does not have a similar structure, which raises questions as to what devices Dutch employs to serve the same purpose as question tags. This contrastive study examines such correspondents in a parallel corpus of English novels and their Dutch translations. Three structures can be identified: pragmatic markers, clause-final parentheticals and combinations of these. The data indicate a preference for pragmatic markers (most notably he and toch ), which predominantly appear either as invariant tags or clause-medially, indicating subtle shifts in utterance interpretation.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80526868","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Flöck, Ilka: Requests in American and British English: A contrastive multi-method analysis. - Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 2016. - ISBN: 978 90 272 6676 7. - DOI: 10.1075/pbns.265","authors":"Rebekah Wegener","doi":"10.1075/LIC.17.2.08WEG","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/LIC.17.2.08WEG","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87495001","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Coherence relations linking discourse segments can be communicated explicitly by the use of connectives but also implicitly through juxtaposition. Some discourse relations appear, however, to be more coherent than others when conveyed implicitly. This difference is explained in the literature by the existence of default expectations guiding discourse interpretation. In this paper, we assess the factors influencing implicitation by comparing the number of implicit and explicit translations of three polysemous French connectives in translated texts across three target languages: German, English and Spanish. Each connective can convey two discourse relations: one that can easily be conveyed implicitly and one that cannot be easily conveyed implicitly in monolingual data. Results indicate that relations that can easily be conveyed implicitly are also those that are most often left implicit in translation in all target languages. We discuss these results in view of the cognitive factors influencing the explicit or implicit communication of discourse relations.
{"title":"Discourse connectives across languages. Factors influencing their explicit or implicit translation","authors":"S. Zufferey","doi":"10.1075/LIC.16.2.05ZUF","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/LIC.16.2.05ZUF","url":null,"abstract":"Coherence relations linking discourse segments can be communicated explicitly by the use of connectives but also implicitly through juxtaposition. Some discourse relations appear, however, to be more coherent than others when conveyed implicitly. This difference is explained in the literature by the existence of default expectations guiding discourse interpretation. In this paper, we assess the factors influencing implicitation by comparing the number of implicit and explicit translations of three polysemous French connectives in translated texts across three target languages: German, English and Spanish. Each connective can convey two discourse relations: one that can easily be conveyed implicitly and one that cannot be easily conveyed implicitly in monolingual data. Results indicate that relations that can easily be conveyed implicitly are also those that are most often left implicit in translation in all target languages. We discuss these results in view of the cognitive factors influencing the explicit or implicit communication of discourse relations.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2016-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85021554","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：